Yes, indeed–but that's actually part of the argument against: it allows to define basically anything "profit-driven" and makes the idea meaningless. The unfort

Yes, indeed–but that's actually part of the argument against: it allows to define basically anything "profit-driven" and makes the idea meaningless. The unfortunate part is where this supposed doctrine is used repeatedly to excuse companies' worst behaviours: "Amazon cannot install air conditioning in warehouses that have people fainting in the summer, because that would clearly cost money and Bezos would be criminally liable for leaving money on the table".